Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
Residents Parking Expansion for SE7 - UPDATE PAGE 3
Comments
-
A couple of schools close to Arsenal’s stadium hire out the school playground for car parking on match days. One of them I know the school business manager and confirmed the school receives money from this.Odavid2206 said:
Seems to have gone back up to £15 now when I look? Maybe it is cheaper if you book earlier?Pico said:In the meantime, parking at Windrush Primary School which cost £15 for the Watford game seems to have been reduced to £10 for Leicester
https://thebigparking.co.uk/football/events/aug-25/charlton-athletic-v-leicester-city
We used it for the Watford game and it worked ok, I hope the school get a good amount of the money.
1 -
Where my parents live there are no traffic issues, only have the 291 bus in walkable distance and don’t have any parking issues. All it would have done is try to solve a problem that doesn’t exist and cost them a lot of money to park outside their own house.Rothko said:
The poorest Londoners don’t drive,Curb_It said:Taking it back to the other thread and the comment about Plumstead residents being wrong by @Rothko
The people that need their cars are usually the most poorly paid I believe? The carers? I usually see 3 or 4 sets on my walk to the station buzzing about in their little micras. The teaching assistants that park in my road to work in the primary school at the end of the road. Maybe they need to drop off their own kids to schools so can’t use public transport. The children that need to visit their elderly parents on a daily basis would then have to pay for that necessity, which might just stretch the finances too much that they stop.
Doesnt affect us city types who use public transport but seems to me that it would just be a step too far for the financially vulnerable.Who would ever have thought that owning a car would become only for the privileged.
Of the households that earn less than £10,000, 78% do not own a car and 64% of households that earn between £10,000 and £19,999 do not own a car. In outer London, 70% of households that earn less than £10,000 annually do not own a car and 53% of households that earn between £10,000 and £19,999 do not own a car. The poorest Londoners are more affected by air pollution.
I disagree with the Plumstead campaign, as the area is pretty badly affected by traffic issues, is well served by public transport and with proper implementation would have improved the area. The council have been absolutist on the issue, which doesn’t help, and the move should have been gradual, but the campaign against is as absolutist the other way.
a nonsense idea rightly scrapped.13 -
Yes the 244 the bus journey from hell!!JohnnyH2 said:
Must be hiding the Train, DLR, Tube, Tram stations up there. Maybe it’s the loads of bus routes they have that hide them!Rothko said:
Yes, again well served, but also very sharp elbowed middle class at play there, vote green, don’t be greenJohnnyH2 said:
Does this apply to the Shooters Hill area of Plumstead?Rothko said:
The poorest Londoners don’t drive,Curb_It said:Taking it back to the other thread and the comment about Plumstead residents being wrong by @Rothko
The people that need their cars are usually the most poorly paid I believe? The carers? I usually see 3 or 4 sets on my walk to the station buzzing about in their little micras. The teaching assistants that park in my road to work in the primary school at the end of the road. Maybe they need to drop off their own kids to schools so can’t use public transport. The children that need to visit their elderly parents on a daily basis would then have to pay for that necessity, which might just stretch the finances too much that they stop.
Doesnt affect us city types who use public transport but seems to me that it would just be a step too far for the financially vulnerable.Who would ever have thought that owning a car would become only for the privileged.
Of the households that earn less than £10,000, 78% do not own a car and 64% of households that earn between £10,000 and £19,999 do not own a car. In outer London, 70% of households that earn less than £10,000 annually do not own a car and 53% of households that earn between £10,000 and £19,999 do not own a car. The poorest Londoners are more affected by air pollution.
I disagree with the Plumstead campaign, as the area is pretty badly affected by traffic issues, is well served by public transport and with proper implementation would have improved the area. The council have been absolutist on the issue, which doesn’t help, and the move should have been gradual, but the campaign against is as absolutist the other way.
Yes this sharp elbowed working class woman voted green not being green! Love it.6 -
I don’t understand what you mean by absolutist.Rothko said:
The poorest Londoners don’t drive,Curb_It said:Taking it back to the other thread and the comment about Plumstead residents being wrong by @Rothko
The people that need their cars are usually the most poorly paid I believe? The carers? I usually see 3 or 4 sets on my walk to the station buzzing about in their little micras. The teaching assistants that park in my road to work in the primary school at the end of the road. Maybe they need to drop off their own kids to schools so can’t use public transport. The children that need to visit their elderly parents on a daily basis would then have to pay for that necessity, which might just stretch the finances too much that they stop.
Doesnt affect us city types who use public transport but seems to me that it would just be a step too far for the financially vulnerable.Who would ever have thought that owning a car would become only for the privileged.
Of the households that earn less than £10,000, 78% do not own a car and 64% of households that earn between £10,000 and £19,999 do not own a car. In outer London, 70% of households that earn less than £10,000 annually do not own a car and 53% of households that earn between £10,000 and £19,999 do not own a car. The poorest Londoners are more affected by air pollution.
I disagree with the Plumstead campaign, as the area is pretty badly affected by traffic issues, is well served by public transport and with proper implementation would have improved the area. The council have been absolutist on the issue, which doesn’t help, and the move should have been gradual, but the campaign against is as absolutist the other way.
Im impressed with your knowledge of those stats. That is interesting.
But I just dont agree with charging those on minimum wage to go to work locally. I don’t agree with the extra tax and I disagree that the area suffers traffic problems. It only suffers badly when something goes wrong at the tunnel or bridge. Or the complete screw up by the council this week.5 -
And while I’m on the subject of traffic… 20mph on Academy Road is ridiculous.10
-
The stats were ones that come up when we had the ULEZ debate on here, and have been published by TfL0
-
That was quick. I suppose it is demand-led.david2206 said:
Seems to have gone back up to £15 now when I look? Maybe it is cheaper if you book earlier?Pico said:In the meantime, parking at Windrush Primary School which cost £15 for the Watford game seems to have been reduced to £10 for Leicester
https://thebigparking.co.uk/football/events/aug-25/charlton-athletic-v-leicester-city
We used it for the Watford game and it worked ok, I hope the school get a good amount of the money.
It is £15 for Millwall (Sep 13th) at the moment. Given that there will be no trains from Cannon Street / London Bridge to Charlton on that day it might be a good idea to book early.
How busy was it for the Watford game?0 -
Millwall is the 13thPico said:
That was quick. I suppose it is demand-led.david2206 said:
Seems to have gone back up to £15 now when I look? Maybe it is cheaper if you book earlier?Pico said:In the meantime, parking at Windrush Primary School which cost £15 for the Watford game seems to have been reduced to £10 for Leicester
https://thebigparking.co.uk/football/events/aug-25/charlton-athletic-v-leicester-city
We used it for the Watford game and it worked ok, I hope the school get a good amount of the money.
It is £15 for Millwall (Sep 6th) at the moment. Given that there will be no trains from Cannon Street / London Bridge to Charlton on that day it might be a good idea to book early.
How busy was it for the Watford game?2 -
Thanks. Now edited0
-
Sorry not sure - we arrived early and then left late due to going to the club shop after the game. All I know is when we turned up at about 11am the 'front entrance' car park was already full.Pico said:
That was quick. I suppose it is demand-led.david2206 said:
Seems to have gone back up to £15 now when I look? Maybe it is cheaper if you book earlier?Pico said:In the meantime, parking at Windrush Primary School which cost £15 for the Watford game seems to have been reduced to £10 for Leicester
https://thebigparking.co.uk/football/events/aug-25/charlton-athletic-v-leicester-city
We used it for the Watford game and it worked ok, I hope the school get a good amount of the money.
It is £15 for Millwall (Sep 13th) at the moment. Given that there will be no trains from Cannon Street / London Bridge to Charlton on that day it might be a good idea to book early.
How busy was it for the Watford game?0 -
Sponsored links:
-
You buy a house near a sports stadium and then get pissed off at people wishing to park there as a result.thickandthin63 said:Obviously I am only concerned about matchday parking,but surely this will affect any person visiting families or friends,if you drive 100 miles to see your mum and dad,can you only park outside their house for 2 hours.I do agree,I would be pissed off if I came home from work and couldnt park due to football traffic,but these proposed restrictions will cause many problems for residents,I hope they speak up.
This is a bit like buying a house near an airport and then complaining about the noise once you have moved in.
Mmmmmm. 🙄5 -
So what would have improved exactly on the multiple residential roads impacted which are not on what most would describe as main / busy roads?Rothko said:
The poorest Londoners don’t drive,Curb_It said:Taking it back to the other thread and the comment about Plumstead residents being wrong by @Rothko
The people that need their cars are usually the most poorly paid I believe? The carers? I usually see 3 or 4 sets on my walk to the station buzzing about in their little micras. The teaching assistants that park in my road to work in the primary school at the end of the road. Maybe they need to drop off their own kids to schools so can’t use public transport. The children that need to visit their elderly parents on a daily basis would then have to pay for that necessity, which might just stretch the finances too much that they stop.
Doesnt affect us city types who use public transport but seems to me that it would just be a step too far for the financially vulnerable.Who would ever have thought that owning a car would become only for the privileged.
Of the households that earn less than £10,000, 78% do not own a car and 64% of households that earn between £10,000 and £19,999 do not own a car. In outer London, 70% of households that earn less than £10,000 annually do not own a car and 53% of households that earn between £10,000 and £19,999 do not own a car. The poorest Londoners are more affected by air pollution.
I disagree with the Plumstead campaign, as the area is pretty badly affected by traffic issues, is well served by public transport and with proper implementation would have improved the area. The council have been absolutist on the issue, which doesn’t help, and the move should have been gradual, but the campaign against is as absolutist the other way.
All
it would have done would reduce parking spots and impose a cost.Were residents expected to sell their cars then and give up on car ownership?
I will ask again. Are you either not a car owner or have the benefit of your own drive?5 -
And for about the 50th time I’ve told you, I drive and have my own space, I also drive a terrible woke EV, but you know this, so what’s your next performative flourish.valleynick66 said:
So what would have improved exactly on the multiple residential roads impacted which are not on what most would describe as main / busy roads?Rothko said:
The poorest Londoners don’t drive,Curb_It said:Taking it back to the other thread and the comment about Plumstead residents being wrong by @Rothko
The people that need their cars are usually the most poorly paid I believe? The carers? I usually see 3 or 4 sets on my walk to the station buzzing about in their little micras. The teaching assistants that park in my road to work in the primary school at the end of the road. Maybe they need to drop off their own kids to schools so can’t use public transport. The children that need to visit their elderly parents on a daily basis would then have to pay for that necessity, which might just stretch the finances too much that they stop.
Doesnt affect us city types who use public transport but seems to me that it would just be a step too far for the financially vulnerable.Who would ever have thought that owning a car would become only for the privileged.
Of the households that earn less than £10,000, 78% do not own a car and 64% of households that earn between £10,000 and £19,999 do not own a car. In outer London, 70% of households that earn less than £10,000 annually do not own a car and 53% of households that earn between £10,000 and £19,999 do not own a car. The poorest Londoners are more affected by air pollution.
I disagree with the Plumstead campaign, as the area is pretty badly affected by traffic issues, is well served by public transport and with proper implementation would have improved the area. The council have been absolutist on the issue, which doesn’t help, and the move should have been gradual, but the campaign against is as absolutist the other way.
All
it would have done would reduce parking spots and impose a cost.Were residents expected to sell their cars then and give up on car ownership?
I will ask again. Are you either not a car owner or have the benefit of your own drive?As for the residents, who’s being asked to sell their car? The lack of spaces thing has always been over hyped, because as you say, these are quiet roads with no problems. as for the cost of a permit, do you think £2 a week is too expensive for parking, or is a space on the road for a car a fundamental human right?4 -
Fair play and well done to those residents in Plumstead and Shooters Hill who stood up to Greenwich Council and got them to back down.clive said:Rumours coming out of a meeting at Woolwich Town Hall this evening that the council have abandoned plans for CPZ's in two areas Plumstead & Shooters Hill, maybe with enough public pressure the council will withdraw their plans for other areas.
Very remindful to what 14,838 votes against the local council at the time over 35 years ago
Now how did that end up in the end I wonder4 -
I do drive and I don’t have a driveway.valleynick66 said:
Can I ask - do you either don’t drive or have a driveway to park your car if you do?iainment said:As a long standing Plumstead resident I think the council caving is bad for the area.0 -
We are an incredibly woke household with a fully EV car. We will be ok but again I’m not moaning about myself.Rothko said:
And for about the 50th time I’ve told you, I drive and have my own space, I also drive a terrible woke EV, but you know this, so what’s your next performative flourish.valleynick66 said:
So what would have improved exactly on the multiple residential roads impacted which are not on what most would describe as main / busy roads?Rothko said:
The poorest Londoners don’t drive,Curb_It said:Taking it back to the other thread and the comment about Plumstead residents being wrong by @Rothko
The people that need their cars are usually the most poorly paid I believe? The carers? I usually see 3 or 4 sets on my walk to the station buzzing about in their little micras. The teaching assistants that park in my road to work in the primary school at the end of the road. Maybe they need to drop off their own kids to schools so can’t use public transport. The children that need to visit their elderly parents on a daily basis would then have to pay for that necessity, which might just stretch the finances too much that they stop.
Doesnt affect us city types who use public transport but seems to me that it would just be a step too far for the financially vulnerable.Who would ever have thought that owning a car would become only for the privileged.
Of the households that earn less than £10,000, 78% do not own a car and 64% of households that earn between £10,000 and £19,999 do not own a car. In outer London, 70% of households that earn less than £10,000 annually do not own a car and 53% of households that earn between £10,000 and £19,999 do not own a car. The poorest Londoners are more affected by air pollution.
I disagree with the Plumstead campaign, as the area is pretty badly affected by traffic issues, is well served by public transport and with proper implementation would have improved the area. The council have been absolutist on the issue, which doesn’t help, and the move should have been gradual, but the campaign against is as absolutist the other way.
All
it would have done would reduce parking spots and impose a cost.Were residents expected to sell their cars then and give up on car ownership?
I will ask again. Are you either not a car owner or have the benefit of your own drive?As for the residents, who’s being asked to sell their car? The lack of spaces thing has always been over hyped, because as you say, these are quiet roads with no problems. as for the cost of a permit, do you think £2 a week is too expensive for parking, or is a space on the road for a car a fundamental human right?If I remember rightly you had to move out of London as it was too expensive. I’m shocked that you do not feel anything for those (lower earners) that need a car to work and that have to find more money to park. Very harsh and uncaring for those that need it. Surprises me that.5 -
Of course those residents that require a tradesperson to visit their home and undertake work will now see the cost of any cpz charges passed onto them by the trader. This is natural for any tax increase, the customer always pays. I am sure those who are finding it hard to make ends meet will be able to meet the extra cost the councillors in Greenwich have deemed acceptable for their residents and any visitors to their area. Such a regressive way to earn the council more money and terribly unfair as those who can afford it and those who can least afford it will pay the same amount to have the audacity to own and need to park a vehicle on the King's highway.3
-
We moved to where we are because we needed a bigger house as we wanted a family, and the two up two down in Woolwich was too small. we choose this area after not completing on places in Lee and Bromley. Not because of price.Curb_It said:
We are an incredibly woke household with a fully EV car. We will be ok but again I’m not moaning about myself.Rothko said:
And for about the 50th time I’ve told you, I drive and have my own space, I also drive a terrible woke EV, but you know this, so what’s your next performative flourish.valleynick66 said:
So what would have improved exactly on the multiple residential roads impacted which are not on what most would describe as main / busy roads?Rothko said:
The poorest Londoners don’t drive,Curb_It said:Taking it back to the other thread and the comment about Plumstead residents being wrong by @Rothko
The people that need their cars are usually the most poorly paid I believe? The carers? I usually see 3 or 4 sets on my walk to the station buzzing about in their little micras. The teaching assistants that park in my road to work in the primary school at the end of the road. Maybe they need to drop off their own kids to schools so can’t use public transport. The children that need to visit their elderly parents on a daily basis would then have to pay for that necessity, which might just stretch the finances too much that they stop.
Doesnt affect us city types who use public transport but seems to me that it would just be a step too far for the financially vulnerable.Who would ever have thought that owning a car would become only for the privileged.
Of the households that earn less than £10,000, 78% do not own a car and 64% of households that earn between £10,000 and £19,999 do not own a car. In outer London, 70% of households that earn less than £10,000 annually do not own a car and 53% of households that earn between £10,000 and £19,999 do not own a car. The poorest Londoners are more affected by air pollution.
I disagree with the Plumstead campaign, as the area is pretty badly affected by traffic issues, is well served by public transport and with proper implementation would have improved the area. The council have been absolutist on the issue, which doesn’t help, and the move should have been gradual, but the campaign against is as absolutist the other way.
All
it would have done would reduce parking spots and impose a cost.Were residents expected to sell their cars then and give up on car ownership?
I will ask again. Are you either not a car owner or have the benefit of your own drive?As for the residents, who’s being asked to sell their car? The lack of spaces thing has always been over hyped, because as you say, these are quiet roads with no problems. as for the cost of a permit, do you think £2 a week is too expensive for parking, or is a space on the road for a car a fundamental human right?If I remember rightly you had to move out of London as it was too expensive. I’m shocked that you do not feel anything for those (lower earners) that need a car to work and that have to find more money to park. Very harsh and uncaring for those that need it. Surprises me that.
I’m sympathetic, but also the stats say that the lowest earners don’t travel by car and use public transport more, with buses being their main transport choice. We had similar arguments about how low earners would be left stranded by ULEZ, it didn’t happen.
1 -
If you have told me I have missed it. Perhaps you confuse me with someone else? 50 times !Rothko said:
And for about the 50th time I’ve told you, I drive and have my own space, I also drive a terrible woke EV, but you know this, so what’s your next performative flourish.valleynick66 said:
So what would have improved exactly on the multiple residential roads impacted which are not on what most would describe as main / busy roads?Rothko said:
The poorest Londoners don’t drive,Curb_It said:Taking it back to the other thread and the comment about Plumstead residents being wrong by @Rothko
The people that need their cars are usually the most poorly paid I believe? The carers? I usually see 3 or 4 sets on my walk to the station buzzing about in their little micras. The teaching assistants that park in my road to work in the primary school at the end of the road. Maybe they need to drop off their own kids to schools so can’t use public transport. The children that need to visit their elderly parents on a daily basis would then have to pay for that necessity, which might just stretch the finances too much that they stop.
Doesnt affect us city types who use public transport but seems to me that it would just be a step too far for the financially vulnerable.Who would ever have thought that owning a car would become only for the privileged.
Of the households that earn less than £10,000, 78% do not own a car and 64% of households that earn between £10,000 and £19,999 do not own a car. In outer London, 70% of households that earn less than £10,000 annually do not own a car and 53% of households that earn between £10,000 and £19,999 do not own a car. The poorest Londoners are more affected by air pollution.
I disagree with the Plumstead campaign, as the area is pretty badly affected by traffic issues, is well served by public transport and with proper implementation would have improved the area. The council have been absolutist on the issue, which doesn’t help, and the move should have been gradual, but the campaign against is as absolutist the other way.
All
it would have done would reduce parking spots and impose a cost.Were residents expected to sell their cars then and give up on car ownership?
I will ask again. Are you either not a car owner or have the benefit of your own drive?As for the residents, who’s being asked to sell their car? The lack of spaces thing has always been over hyped, because as you say, these are quiet roads with no problems. as for the cost of a permit, do you think £2 a week is too expensive for parking, or is a space on the road for a car a fundamental human right?
But I fear you miss my point. Roads without the luxury of a drive that you have are the victims here. They will lose parking spaces and face to pay for what they currently get for ‘free’.I think you might think differently in that scenario.EV is irrelevant to this debate and I have no issue with them.There is no benefit in those roads unless the council wish to see cars sold to reduce ‘congestion ‘. That’s my point - where’s the reduced congestion (the benefit ) otherwise coming from?3 -
Council elections next year but think the majority of people this would affect regarding cafc match days would come from outside of the borough.shirty5 said:
Fair play and well done to those residents in Plumstead and Shooters Hill who stood up to Greenwich Council and got them to back down.clive said:Rumours coming out of a meeting at Woolwich Town Hall this evening that the council have abandoned plans for CPZ's in two areas Plumstead & Shooters Hill, maybe with enough public pressure the council will withdraw their plans for other areas.
Very remindful to what 14,838 votes against the local council at the time over 35 years ago
Now how did that end up in the end I wonder
This is why it’s essential the club, as an RBG business are representing cafc and those fans at the feedback meetings.
2 -
Sponsored links:
-
You can find out how to object to the parking from this fb link from a local conservative councillor.
https://www.facebook.com/share/16kW5a3Mr6/?mibextid=wwXIfr
If you don’t have FB this is a direct link:
https://www.greenwichconservatives.com/how-to-object?fbclid=IwQ0xDSwMOjEBleHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHi3dmVwQiiFpsMcvJTu14zM9ezbA0wQrqDTU0eH_1CyYAnmLpU3YnM08dXOq_aem_FCHJNFrc3t-Sm_MZS13OBAAlso this FB page was set up where people could get info/ download leaflets and posters from.2 -
https://you.38degrees.org.uk/petitions/no-to-cpz-in-charlton?source=whatsapp&utm_medium=socialshare&utm_source=whatsapp&share=a602c8f7-d473-466a-8a38-f059c5f175d3
Here is a petition to sign opposing the Charlton CPZ.
Hopefully if all CL members sign & all share we can get thousands of signatures.5 -
signed and shared.Covered End said:https://you.38degrees.org.uk/petitions/no-to-cpz-in-charlton?source=whatsapp&utm_medium=socialshare&utm_source=whatsapp&share=a602c8f7-d473-466a-8a38-f059c5f175d3
Here is a petition to sign opposing the Charlton CPZ.
Hopefully if all CL members sign & all share we can get thousands of signatures.1 -
Should be a sticky0
-
Sorry if I've missed this but is there's map that highlights the restricted/soon to be restricted area?0
-
The way I’m reading it, it’s the whole of Charlton 🤷🏻♂️SantaClaus said:Sorry if I've missed this but is there's map that highlights the restricted/soon to be restricted area?0 -
The whole of Greenwich borough. But they have cancelled Plumstead and Shooters Hill due to many objections.1
-
Yes admin, please can we make this a sticky and amend the title to make it very clear there is a petition to sign?2
-
It seems to me that the suffix in the highlighted word is doing far too much heavy lifting and is overstretching itself. The 'lowest' earners may not have such a high level of car ownership, this seems obvious really as they are less likely to afford them. That does not mean that lots of low earners are not highly dependent on their vehicles. Indeed the lower levels of ownership may make low-earners even more dependent on their vehicles, because there is likely to be a lot more dependency on car sharing within family groups than with people of higher economic status.Rothko said:Curb_It said:
We are an incredibly woke household with a fully EV car. We will be ok but again I’m not moaning about myself.Rothko said:
And for about the 50th time I’ve told you, I drive and have my own space, I also drive a terrible woke EV, but you know this, so what’s your next performative flourish.valleynick66 said:
So what would have improved exactly on the multiple residential roads impacted which are not on what most would describe as main / busy roads?Rothko said:
The poorest Londoners don’t drive,Curb_It said:Taking it back to the other thread and the comment about Plumstead residents being wrong by @Rothko
The people that need their cars are usually the most poorly paid I believe? The carers? I usually see 3 or 4 sets on my walk to the station buzzing about in their little micras. The teaching assistants that park in my road to work in the primary school at the end of the road. Maybe they need to drop off their own kids to schools so can’t use public transport. The children that need to visit their elderly parents on a daily basis would then have to pay for that necessity, which might just stretch the finances too much that they stop.
Doesnt affect us city types who use public transport but seems to me that it would just be a step too far for the financially vulnerable.Who would ever have thought that owning a car would become only for the privileged.
Of the households that earn less than £10,000, 78% do not own a car and 64% of households that earn between £10,000 and £19,999 do not own a car. In outer London, 70% of households that earn less than £10,000 annually do not own a car and 53% of households that earn between £10,000 and £19,999 do not own a car. The poorest Londoners are more affected by air pollution.
I disagree with the Plumstead campaign, as the area is pretty badly affected by traffic issues, is well served by public transport and with proper implementation would have improved the area. The council have been absolutist on the issue, which doesn’t help, and the move should have been gradual, but the campaign against is as absolutist the other way.
All
it would have done would reduce parking spots and impose a cost.Were residents expected to sell their cars then and give up on car ownership?
I will ask again. Are you either not a car owner or have the benefit of your own drive?As for the residents, who’s being asked to sell their car? The lack of spaces thing has always been over hyped, because as you say, these are quiet roads with no problems. as for the cost of a permit, do you think £2 a week is too expensive for parking, or is a space on the road for a car a fundamental human right?If I remember rightly you had to move out of London as it was too expensive. I’m shocked that you do not feel anything for those (lower earners) that need a car to work and that have to find more money to park. Very harsh and uncaring for those that need it. Surprises me that.
I’m sympathetic, but also the stats say that the lowest earners don’t travel by car and use public transport more, with buses being their main transport choice. We had similar arguments about how low earners would be left stranded by ULEZ, it didn’t happen.3 -
There are plenty of concerned comments on the petition from low earners.
4
